At least that’s how Terry Russell, associate professor of Asian studies at the university, saw it.
“The [university] president has highlighted human rights as a major point of concern for the university,” says Russell.
“We didn’t see how you could reconcile inviting the Chinese government, which the Confucius Institute is basically an agent of, to come on campus and present programs that wouldn’t ever actually talk about human rights in China except according to the official Beijing line.”
The U of M recently abandoned the idea of having a Confucius Institute on campus, at least for now.
Headquartered in Beijing and with over 300 branches worldwide, Confucius Institutes are branded as promoting Chinese language and facilitating cultural and educational exchange with China.
But the supports they provide are not exactly like the programs supported by many countries interested in promoting their culture, such as Japan’s Tanaka Fund Program, where grants are provided for the university to spend on approved initiatives like buying books or funding instructors.
“National governments, if they want to fund programs in their national cultures, they give grants, and they allow the individual faculties to administer the programs,” explains Russell.
“But Beijing wants to control everything, so they would be the ones ultimately in charge of what was going to be taught and how it was taught and what projects were done and what activities were done.”
Russell points to references on the main website of the Confucius Institute on issues considered sensitive by the Chinese Communist Party.
A search for Tiananmen brings several pages of references, but no mention of the 1989 massacre. The site also refers to Taiwan as “the largest island in China,” not an independent democratic nation. It refers to the 1951 occupation of Tibetan capital Lhasa as a peaceful liberation, and makes no mention of the Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong’s notorious campaign of economic and social reforms that resulted in a great famine that killed tens of millions of people. (A search in Chinese brings up a few references, but no explanation is provided as to what happened).
Under the conditions for overseas volunteer Chinese teachers, the site lists “no record of participation in Falun Gong,” a condition that most democratic countries like Canada would consider as discrimination.
“The Institute, its central website, provides a whole bunch of teaching materials which are straight out of the propaganda department and the ministry of education in Beijing,” says Russell.
“There is no room for critical examination of any information or original research. This is not what universities are about, at least not in Canada.”
Soft power
In an article written in the China Heritage Quarterly, published by the Australian National University-based China Heritage Project, Michael Churchman says that the institutes are seen as part of the Chinese regime’s efforts to extend its “soft power.”
Chinese officials haven’t always been shy to reveal this. Li Changchun, the Chinese Communist Party’s Propaganda chief and the fifth highest ranking member of the ruling Politburo Standing Committee, has referred to the institutes as “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.”
Richard Fadden, director of Canada’s intelligence agency CSIS, has said that the institutes are under the control of Chinese Embassies and Consulates and has linked them with some of the regime’s other efforts to influence Canada’s China policy.
